alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS 

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements of Sky Financial Group, Inc. of our report dated January 21,2003 on the consolidated financial statements of Sky Financial Group, Inc. included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002. 

 

Form S-4 No. 333-102128 

Form S-8 No.333-65942 

Form S-8 No. 333-59312 

Form S-8 No. 333-67233 

Form S-8 No. 333-47315 (Post-Effective Amendment No.1 on Form S-8 to Form S-4) 

Form S-8 No. 333-60741 (Post Effective Amendment No.1 on Form S-8 to Form S-4) 

Form S-3 No. 333-64127 (Filed as Citizens Bancshares, Inc.) 

Form S-8 No. 333-18867 (Filed asCitizens Bancshares, Inc.) 

 

/s/ Crowe, Chizek and Company LLP

Crowe, Chizek and Company LLP 

 

Columbus, Ohio 

February 28, 2003
SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I

#### Williams v. City & County

18844

6/9/97

Vacated and Remanded
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Petitioner

v.

JOSHUA MICHAEL LUKACH,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 313 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 22 nd day of September, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of

Appeal is GRANTED . The issues, as stated by petitioner, are:

a. As a matter of first impression, did the Pennsylvania Superior Court err in holding that a suspect that is subject to custodial interrogation clearly and unambiguously invokes his right to remain silent under the standard

articulated in Berghuis v. Thompki ns , 130 S.Ct. 2250 (2010), where he makes a statement that he does not wish to talk, but, qualifies that statement with a statement of “I don't know” and a general assertion of innocence?

b. Did the Pennsylvania Superior Court commit an error of law when it applied the wrong legal standard in affirming suppression of the physical evidence found as the “fruits” of [r]espondent's confession where there was only a violation of the prophylactic rules of Miranda and the confession was not a product of coercion?
# C_2008051EN.01004702.xml

| 23.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/47

---

Action brought on 17 December 2007 — Dominio de la Vega v OHIM — Ambrosio Velasco (DOMINIO DE LA VEGA)

(Case T-458/07)

(2008/C 51/88)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Dominio de la Vega, S.L. (Requena, Spain) (represented by: E. Caballero Oliver, lawyer and A. Sanz-Bernell y Martinéz, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Ambrosio Velasco, S.A. (Dicastillo, Navarra, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 October 2007 (Case R 1431/2006-2) and consequently dismiss the opposition filed by Ambrosio Velasco, S.A.; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 October 2007 (Case R 1431/2006-2) and consequently dismiss the opposition filed by Ambrosio Velasco, S.A.;

| — | Order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Dominio de la Vega, S.L.

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘DOMINIO DE LA VEGA’ for goods in Classes 33, 42 and 43 (Application No 2.789.576).

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Ambrosio Velasco, S.A.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative Community trade mark ‘PALACIO DE LA VEGA’ for goods in Class 33.

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld for all those goods, in Class 33, against which it was directed, and rejection of the application for those goods.

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Incorrect application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) since there is no likelihood of confusion between the signs in dispute.

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

1

---
# C_2023083EN.01001502.xml

| 6.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 83/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 83/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 December 2022 — Vialto Consulting v Commission

(Case T-537/18) (1)

(Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance - Grants - Investigations by OLAF - Administrative penalty - Exclusion, for a period of two years, from public procurement procedures and from procedures for the award of grants financed from the general budget of the European Union - Obligation to state reasons - Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2185/96 - Principle of good administration - Legitimate expectations - Unlimited jurisdiction - Proportionality of the penalty)

(2023/C 83/17)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Vialto Consulting Kft. (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: V. Christianos, A. Politis and G. Kelepouri, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Katsimerou and R. Pethke, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action, the applicant seeks, first, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, annulment of the decision of the European Commission of 29 June 2018 by which the latter excluded the applicant for a period of two years from public procurement procedures, from procedures for the award of grants, from procedures for financial instruments (for dedicated investment vehicles and financial intermediaries) and from procedures for prizes governed by Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ 2012 L 298, p. 1), and from award procedures governed by Council Regulation (EU) 2015/323 of 2 March 2015 on the financial regulation applicable to the 11th European Development Fund (OJ 2015 L 58, p. 17), and ordered the publication of that exclusion on its website and, second, on the basis of Article 268 TFEU, compensation for the damage which the applicant claims to have suffered as a result of that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Vialto Consulting Kft.to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Vialto Consulting Kft.to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.

---
# C_2020027EN.01007201.xml

| 27.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 27/72 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/72

---

Order of the General Court of 25 November 2019 – Lipitalia 2000 and Assograssi v Commission

(Case T-189/18) (1)

(2020/C 27/73)

Language of the case: Italian

The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 166, 14.5.2018.

---
#### Nathan ELLIS, Plaintiff in Error, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.

No. A-12633.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

Oct. 22, 1958.

*416Hughes & Hughes, Hobart, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., John W. Don-ley, County Atty., Arapaho, for defendant in error.

NIX, Judge.

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, was charged by information with the crime of Murder in the District Court of Custer County. He was tried before a jury, found guilty of Manslaughter, and his punishment fixed at 60 years in the Oklahoma State Penitentiary.

The defendant lodged his appeal in thii Court on the 17th day of June, 1958. It was set for oral argument on July 30, 1958, at which time oral argument was waived. The case was submitted on record on September 10, 1958. No briefs were filed.

This court has consistently held that:

> “Where the defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction and no briefs are filed, nor argument presented, this court will examine the evidence and ascertain if it supports the verdict, and will make an examination of the information, instructions excepted to, and the judgment, and if no material error is apparent, the judgment will be affirmed.” Hulsey v. State, 82 Okl.Cr. 332, 169 P.2d 771.

In compliance with this rule, we have carefully examined the record and find no error which would justify reversal. The record of this court reflects that the facts of this case were set out in detail in an opinion rendered by this court (Ellis v. State, Okl.Cr., 318 P.2d 629), wherein this court reversed said cause and remanded it for a new trial. This being the second trial, it is unnecessary to encumber this decision by reiterating the facts as shown by the testimony.

The information properly charges the defendant. The evidence is ample to support the verdict and the instructions give a fair and correct statement of the law. The defendant filed no brief supporting any contention of error.

The case is therefore affirmed.

BRETT, P. J., and POWELL, J., concur.
EXHIBIT
23




[LETTERHEAD OF STEGMAN &
COMPANY]




CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUTING FIRM





We hereby
consent to the incorporation of our report dated March 5, 2010, relating to the
2009 consolidated financial statements of Tri-County Financial Corporation, by
reference in Registration Statements Nos. 333-79237, 333-70800, and 333-125103,
each of Form S-8, and in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Tri-County Financial
Corporation, for the year ended December 31, 2009.





/s/
      Stegman & Company





Baltimore,
Maryland


March 9,
2010
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 20 , 2020 

# Order

Clerk Novem ber 20 , 2020

16 1716 ( 61 )

RENEE SWAIN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

SC: 161716

v COA: 346850

Oakland CC: 2017

- 158765

- CZ

MICHAEL MORSE,

Defendant

- Appellant,

and

MARK ZARKIN and STEVEN LELLIS

ON THE GREEN, LLC,

Defendants

- Appellees.

_________________________________________/

On order of the C hief Justice , the motion of defendant s

- appellee s to extend the time

for filing their answer to the application for leave to appeal is GRANTED

. The answer

submitted on October 29 , 2020, is accepted as timely filed

.
#### Cresencia v. Kim

15593

8/22/94

Denied

— Haw.App. -, 878 P.2d 725
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 113 (Thursday, July 26, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5327]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

           By Mr. KIND:
       H.R. 6212.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article I Section 8.
```
#### State v. Holt

16039

9/01/94

Affirmed
EXHIBIT 3.19
                   ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
                               OF
                     DEGUELLE OIL COMPANY

     I, the undersigned natural person of the age of twenty-one
years or more, acting as incorporator of a corporation under the
Colorado Corporation Code, adopt the following Articles of
Incorporation for such corporation:

     FIRST: The name of the corporation is DEGUELLE OIL COMPANY.

     SECOND: The period of duration is perpetual.

     THIRD: The purpose or purposes for which this corporation is
organized are: To own, operate and manage a gasoline and oil
distributorship including, but not by way of limitation, the
ownership and management of all property and equipment incidental
thereto, as well as any other lawful purpose authorized by law.

     FOURTH: The aggregate number of shares which the corporation
shall have authority to issue is 50,000 shares having no par
value. There shall be only one class of stock, said class to be
common.

     FIFTH: Cumulative voting of shares is not authorized.

     SIXTH: There are no provisions limiting or denying to
shareholders the preemptive right to acquire additional or
treasury shares of the corporation.

     SEVENTH: The address of the registered office of the
corporation is 26223 Highway 160 South, Durango, Colorado 81301,
and the name of the initial registered agent at such address is
Bob L. DeGuelle.

     EIGHTH: The number of directors constituting the initial
Board of Directors of the corporation is four and the names and
addresses of the persons to serve as directors until the first
annual meeting of shareholders or until their successors be
elected and qualify are as follows:

     Bob L. DeGuelle
     3519 Bennett Street
     Durango, CO 81301

     Ann R. DeGuelle
     3519 Bennett Street
     Durango, CO 81301

     Robert A. DeGuelle
     3519 Bennett Street
     Durango, CO 81301
<PAGE>
     Ronald B. DeGuelle
     Golden West Trailer Park
     7520 County Road 203
     Durango, CO 81301

     The name and address of the incorporator is:

     David P. Smith
     813 Main Avenue, Suite 308
     Durango, CO 81301

     NINTH: The Board of Directors shall have the power to make
such prudential by-laws as they may deem necessary and the Board
of Directors shall have the power to amend said by-laws from time
to time as they deem appropriate.

     DATED THIS 30th day of April, 1979.

                           /s/ David P. Smith
                           -----------------------
                           David P. Smith
STATE OF COLORADO  )
                   )ss.
COUNTY OF LA PLATA )

     I, Wanda England, a notary public, hereby certify that on the
30th day of April, 1979, personally appeared before me David P.
Smith, who, being first duly sworn, declared that he was the
person who signed the foregoing document as incorporator and that
the statements therein contained are true.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand seal this
30th day of April, 1979.

     My commission expires: 8-24-80.

                           /s/ Wanda England
                           -----------------------
                           Notary Public
# C_2019093EN.01002901.xml

| 11.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/29

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 3 December 2018 — A, B v C

(Case C-750/18)

(2019/C 93/38)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: A, B

Defendant: C

Question referred

How should Directive 93/13, (1) and, more specifically, the principle of cumulative effect contained in it, be interpreted when assessing whether the sum which a consumer who fails to fulfil his obligations is required to pay in compensation (hereinafter: the penalty clause) is disproportionately high within the meaning of point 1(e) of the annex to that directive, in a case in which penalty clauses are associated with a variety of shortcomings of different types which, by their very nature, do not have to occur jointly, and indeed do not do so in the present case?

---

(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).

---
D. U.S. EPA. 2013. Environmental Risk Assessment of Pasteuria spp. (Hoplolaimus galeatus

nematode) – Ph3 (PC 016457) for a Section 3 Registration of the Technical Product (EPA 

File Symbol 85004-RN) and End Use Product (EPA File Symbol 85004-RR) for Control of 

the Lance Nematode in Turf. Memorandum from S. Borges to J. Kausch dated March 4, 

2013.

Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0609, by one of the following 

methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

• Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket, EPA Docket Center 

(EPA/DC) (Mail Code 28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-

0001.

• Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Docket’s normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information.

EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not 

know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you 

send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that 

you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or 

CD–ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot 

contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should 

avoid the use of special characters, avoid any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. 

For additional information about EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at

http://www.epa.gov/dockets/.

Should you have any questions regarding this memorandum, please contact Ms. Jeannine Kausch by 

telephone at (703) 347-8920 or via email at kausch.jeannine@epa.gov.
June 29, 1999

21927

#### Budynas v. Orange Technologies, Inc.

Affirmed
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-51070

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ARLENE HERNANDEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 4:18-CR-770-3

Before SMITH, DENNIS, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Arlene Hernandez appeals the revocation of her term of probation, which 

was based on her having committed another federal, state, or local crime. We 

review the district court’s decision for an abuse of discretion. See United States 

v. Teran, 98 F.3d 831, 836 (5th Cir. 1996). 

Contrary to Hernandez’s assertions, the Government was not required 

to prove the elements of the Texas offenses with which she was charged; rather 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 21, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-51070 Document: 00515497334 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/21/2020
No. 19-51070

2

the district court could revoke Hernandez’s probation if it found by a 

preponderance of the evidence that she violated a condition of her probation. 

See Teran, 98 F.3d at 836; see also United States v. Spraglin, 418 F.3d 479, 481 

(5th Cir. 2005). The simple possession of a controlled substance is both a 

federal and Texas crime. See 21 U.S.C. § 844; TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE 

ANN. §§ 481.115-481.118. Hernandez concedes that the Government proved 

possession. The evidence and reasonable inferences from it, reviewed in the 

light most favorable to the Government, see United States v. Alaniz-Alaniz, 38 

F.3d 788, 792 (5th Cir. 1994), established that she more likely than not 

possessed controlled substances. Specifically, the arresting officer smelled a 

strong marijuana odor emanating from the vehicle in which Hernandez sat;

inside the vehicle he found what he suspected to be cocaine, marijuana, 

Ecstasy, Xanax, and an acid tab; and the suspected Ecstasy and cocaine fieldtested positive. 

We review Hernandez’s claim that the revocation violated her due 

process rights for plain error only. See Holguin-Hernandez v. United States, 

140 S. Ct. 762, 764 (2020). As detailed above, there was evidentiary support 

for a finding that she violated the conditions of her probation. Hernandez 

therefore fails to make the requisite showing that a due process error occurred

or that the error was clear or obvious. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 

129, 135 (2009); United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 259 (5th Cir. 2009). 

AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue immediately. 

 Case: 19-51070 Document: 00515497334 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/21/2020
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Robert F. Chrestensen, Deceased. Marine Midland Bank, N. A., Appellant.

(Appeal No. 2.)

— Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, appointment of guardian ad litem vacated and special guardian directed to reimburse the estate for any fee received. Same Memorandum as in *Matter of Chrestensen*([appeal No. 1] 175 AD2d 641 [decided herewith]). (Appeal from Order of Cattaraugus County Surrogate’s Court, Horey, S. — Fees of Guardian Ad Litem.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Den-man, Green and Lowery, JJ.
<page>
					  EXHIBIT 32.02



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with the Annual Report of Morgan Stanley Principal
Plus Fund L.P. (the ?Partnership?) on Form 10-K for the period
ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the ?Report?), I, Lee Horwitz, Chief
Financial Officer of Demeter Management Corporation, the general
partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

(1)		The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)		The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Partnership.








By:	/s/Lee Horwitz

Name:	   Lee Horwitz
Title:	   Chief Financial Officer

Date:	   March 23, 2007